Big Thinkers: Francis Fukuyama on the Origins of Political Order and Decay

Political order

Francis Fukuyama’s new book asks two simple yet fundamental questions about the nature of current democracies—where did the modern state come from? And, why is that some nations have achieved an ideal ‘Weberian State’ (that is, a state that is impersonal and based on merit) and others have not?

Fukuyama suggested that part of the answer lies in the sequence of political transition. For example, nations that developed and reformed systems of public administration while still they were still autocratic, meant that they were able to create a degree of insulation that allowed these bureaucracies to function free of political manipulation. In contrast, nations that democratised before undertaking state reform, for instance in Greece and Italy, had a much bigger problem. In these instances, the order of democratic transition meant that the state apparatus was more exposed to manipulation, primarily in the forms of political patronage and clientelism. In Greece for example, to gain political support and legitimacy, the public sector was used as a source of patronage which has continued to this day. The Italian experience has followed a similar fate.

Fukuyama argued that US and the UK the situation is slightly different. While both the US and the UK started with a system of political patronage, they were able to shed this through a mixture of state reform and pressure from progressive politics. In the UK, the Northcote-Trevelyan reforms that established the permanent civil service, came about as a result of a rising British middle class that demanded social and economic change and inclusiveness.

Contrary to the experience in Greece and Italy, the US was able to get rid of its system of patronage after it became a democracy. However, similar to the UK, the US was able to harness progressive politics, underpinned by a rising middle class that demand social and economic change, to rid itself of this system.

For Fukuyama, the experiences in the US and the UK suggest that political patronage is not necessarily a system of public corruption as it is often associated, but an early form of democracy. This point of view has interesting implications for developing countries where patronage is the nature of politics. The American experience suggests that patronage must be forced out through progressive politics if this system is to change.

Political decay: ‘vetocracy’

Fukuyama posited that some western democracies are now starting to show signs of political decay. This is not a problem generic to democratic governance but particular to specific strands of democracy and democratic systems—namely the US, but also Italy and Japan.

The US system in particular is characterised by grid-lock, stasis and an inability to confront difficult decisions. This, he argued, is largely a product of its complex system of checks and balances, combined increasingly partisan nature of US politics. Historically, the system of checks and balances functioned well. There was substantial overlap between parties which made it relatively easy to fashion large coalitions to push through legislation. This cohesion is now lost, and, when combined with complex system of checks and balances, results in an extremely dysfunctional political system. Fukuyama refers to this dysfunctional system as a vetocracy, whereby well organized and resourced minorities and interest groups can stop the action or will of majority.

Discussant: Sir John Holmes

Former British diplomat and current Director of the Ditchley foundation, Sir John Holmes drew four key insights from the book. .

Strong institutions and good governance are not a given

Sir John acknowledged that strong institutions and a well-functioning, meritocratic bureaucracy are essential preconditions for good governance. Though, this is not only about having accountable institutions, elections, and a system of checks and balances. It is also about having the capacity to make and implement decisions. This however is not a given and is becoming increasingly difficult given the complexity of problems that face government as well as the increased scrutiny of decision making from social media.

State building and nation building

Sir John posed the question of whether colonial and neo-colonial efforts to impose new institutional structures on failed states are a worthwhile pursuit. Historical experience with colonialist efforts at nation building suggests results are mixed. While contemporary examples, for instance in Iraq and Afghanistan, also point towards this not being a successful approach.

Political decay is a real problem but what can we do to solve it?

Sir John suggested that democracies are indeed subject to political decay, especially where ‘new elites’ have captured the system. In recent history this has been combined with declining equality of opportunity, increasing inequality of income and an intellectual and institutional rigidity which can’t deal with pace and complexity of change. But while there is recognition that we do have a problem of political decay there is no belief that anything will or can be done to alleviate it. This is profoundly worrying.

What is the future of democracy?

Sir John posed the question of whether democratic values and institutions are universal and inevitable? The answer is perhaps not really, but this is the way things tend to go. But democracies can easily become complacent and rigid and have shown difficulty or lack of capability to deal with long-term decision-making. China will be interesting to watch in this regard. Will it over time come to reflect something closer to the democracies of the west? Or might they develop and alternate system that has some elements of democratic accountability but is also capable of effective long-term decision making?

Questions from the audience

These covered a number of themes including:

• What is potential for localism to shock British system and does scale matter for trust and accountability? Or does decentralisation risk worse government by breaking up successful structures>
• Has China that found a better way of governing (i.e. market economy with Chinese characteristics)? Is it a successful managed State or fragile political system?
• What is the role of the private sector in this debate?
• Is political apathy an indicator of potential for decay?
• What is role of spontaneous order?
• State government in the US appears to be functional—is there something about federal government that is particularly dysfunctional?
• Despite the America’s political decay, it has been a successful nation – is this because of or despite its governance characteristics?
• What is role of politicians in overseeing our democratic institutions and can improve their ability to do this?